JL Mackie: There are Aesthetic Facts

[Skepdick]

It is so often that these philosophy-gnats will insist, "I and others" "everyone here" and the like [this is obviously gang-like] in relying on an ad populum fallacy and reinforcing their ignorance. I don't give a damn as I am very confident of my philosophical views.

Shouldn't you have found a publisher for them by now?

Is publication a success metric in philosophy? I wasn't aware.

I am sure the usual self-propotion and soial hype techniques used by "influencers" around the world could work for philosophy too...

[Iwannaplato]

"Sheepdog trials" are never termed "dog shows".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_show
This is due to your ignorance on the difference, but that is not significant in this issue.

LOL. If you google dog shows and sheepdog trials you will find dozens of events with both types of evaluating dogs based on diverse criteria events are taking place.
I shouldn't have assumed you could make this connection.

We're not trying to be experts in the labeling Evaluating Dog Events. I was pointing out that if you have a basic premise, a value based premise for an Evalutating Dog Event, then you can, yes, compare dogs. But the foundation is always a non-objective value in these dog evaluating events. You can draw conclusions about the speed of dogs performing tasks. But you cannot draw an objective conclusion that their carrying out this task is morally good. You can develop criteria for the beauty and ugliness of dogs, but you cannot prove that they are objectively beautiful.

The problem with your argument is that you MUST have the agreement on the value at the outset.

Of course people who agree on moral or aesthetic values can generally agree on moral conclusions.

But humans have diverse values. I've owned sheepdogs and been in the country and it was a pain in the ass when they saw herdable animals.

https://www.worldsheepdogtrials.org/pas ... 017-final/
Do you deny these are factual and facts as qualified to the ISDS?

I deny exactly what you already quoted. That the goodness of their skills is objective. That one can judge the skills, of course. We can do this with humans. We can judge who is the fastest killer or typist. But to evaluate the goodness we have to have a moral axiom. Different groups have different axioms and we cannot objectively decide which value is good and which is bad. We can certainly have preferences.

Mackie is not support objective moral facts. And, of course, even if he was, we all know that there are philosophers who believe in such things.

Again and again in your arguments you talk about THE moral FSK. That is lying. Especially now that it has been pointed out a number of times. There are many moral FSKs.

The morality-proper-FSK which I proposed shall have an objectivity rating of 90/100 - I have not argued on this yet, but that is the targeted objective which must be met.

You are just making up numbers. And you just did it again. You said science could show which morality FSK is the most objective.

And in fact if we take the science as objective it would support only that we keep empathy and aggression in their current ratios.

This is nonsense within my context.
Suggest you open a thread to argue your own case on this.

Not a response.

REmember: from now on whenever you write 'the moral FSK' you are being disingenous.

WHO ARE YOU to decide?
Note my explanation to your ignorance above.

You changed the wording. You changed it now to 'the morality-proper-FSK I proposed. Before you repeatedly referred to it as 'the morality FSK'. You have done this many times where criticisms change the way you describe/label/argue things without acknowledging that the criticism was spot on. But you again, as is your habit, gave number to the degree of objectivity of this FSK. You based this on Science which cannot pick which morality is best.

If everyone or everyone in a group agrees to basic moral axioms, then you can use science and other forms of reasoning to help decide what actions/morals will work best to support those moral axioms. But science cannot help us decide on those axioms.

If everyone wants tough men and nurturing women, we can then look at behavioral science/psychology/pedagogical studies etc. to see what would be the best ways to raise children so that as adults they fit their sex category.

But we cannot use science to help us decide that the values inherent in those gender roles is correct.

Just as we cannot use science to determine if we should enhance aggression or empathy.

If we have a common value, then we can apply science to see what helps us achieve a world where that value is honored.

Regardless of whatever moral disagreement;
The universal principle is;
What is real, fact, truth, knowledge, objectivity, is conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK of which the scientific FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective.

Utter nonsense.

You are so ignorant.
Note I have mentioned a '1000' times as above, the scientific FSK in general* is taken to be the standard at 100/100 the other FSKs are to be rated with.
Off hand we can rate the theistic-moral-FSK at the extreme end of the standard.
*Within the scientific FSK, the sub-FSKs will have different degrees of objectivity, e.g. the natural sciences, cosmology, theoretical, etc.

Gibbierish.
We all know you repeat things, quite a number of the things you repeat are nonsense. I was writing about morality and you jumped to the scientific FSK,

Say what you like.
It is so often that these philosophy-gnats will insist, "I and others" "everyone here"and the like [this is obviously gang-like] in relying on an ad populum fallacy and reinforcing their ignorance

Nope. I didn't use the ad populum fallacy. I did not say you are wrong because many people disagree with you. I was responding to you calling us a gang and for a long time philosophical realists. You have accused everyone who disagreed with you of having evolutionary backwardness. You have claimed that we are part of a gang. I pointed out a few things 1) you are incapable of acknowledging when someone has correctly pointed out a problem, but people reading you can see that you change your approach in reaction to the criticisms. 2) if someone disagrees with you you assume it is based on the conclusions, not the arguments. And you attack their arguments this way on ad hominem grounds. 3) that the people here criticising you have a range of positions, including antirealism, realism and mixed positions. You have hallucinated the motivation, again and again, that people cannot deal emotionally with your conclusions, for example your antirealism, when this cannot be the case, with all your critics. And none of them are realist in the strawman oversimplification version you constantly paint them as.

I suppose we could all have privately PMed you so it didn't FEEL like gangning up on you. What you have is a conspiracy theory. They are all a gang. So I don't have to take their criticisms seriously. We don't even hold the same worldviews.

I don't give a damn as I am very confident of my philosophical views.

Wow. I wouldn't have realized this. Oh, sorry. I never realized that you don't give a damn. Oh, wait. That's what I'm saying.

I appreciate that you brought antirealism into the discussions in the forum. That was a big plus.

I do hope one day you manage to reevaluate your pride in your imperviousness to critique and inability to acknowledge mistakes. For your sake.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't give a damn as I am very confident of my philosophical views.

Wow. I wouldn't have realized this. Oh, sorry. I never realized that you don't give a damn. Oh, wait. That's what I'm saying.

I appreciate that you brought antirealism into the discussions in the forum. That was a big plus.

I do hope one day you manage to reevaluate your pride in your imperviousness to critique and inability to acknowledge mistakes. For your sake.

As I had stated I am standing on the "shoulders of giants" in this case Kant's philosophies and tempered it with Eastern Philosophy.

Kant confidently make the following BOLD declarations which of course I agreed and adopted;
(the only limitation is Kant do not have our latest advanced-knowledge to reinforce his theories).

Kant: Critique of Pure Reason; PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION
In this enquiry I have made Completeness my chief aim, and I venture to assert that there is not a single metaphysical problem which has not been solved, or for the solution of which the key at least has not been supplied.

Pure Reason is, indeed, so perfect a Unity
that if its Principle were insufficient for the solution of even a single one of all the questions to which it itself gives birth
we should have no alternative but to reject the Principle,
since we should then no longer be able to place implicit reliance upon it in dealing with any one of the other questions. [Axiv]

While I am saying this I can fancy that I detect in the face of the reader an expression of indignation, mingled with contempt, at pretensions seemingly so arrogant and vain-glorious.

Yet they are incomparably more moderate than the claims of all those writers who on the lines of the usual programme profess to prove the Simple Nature of the Soul or the Necessity of a first beginning of the World.
For while such writers pledge themselves to extend human Knowledge beyond all Limits of Possible Experience, I humbly confess that this is entirely beyond my power.

I have to deal with nothing save Reason itself and its Pure Thinking; and to obtain complete Knowledge of these, there is no need to go far afield, since I come upon them in my own self.
Common Logic itself supplies an example, how all the simple acts of Reason can be enumerated Completely and Systematically.

The subject of the present enquiry is the [kindred] question, how much we can hope to achieve by Reason, when all the Material and assistance of Experience are taken away.

So much as regards Completeness in our determination of each question, and Exhaustiveness in our Determination of all the questions with which we have to deal.
These questions are not arbitrarily selected; they are prescribed to us, by the very Nature of Knowledge itself, as being the Subject-Matter of our critical enquiry. [Axv]

As regards the form of our enquiry, Certainty and Clearness are two essential requirements, rightly to be exacted from anyone who ventures upon so delicate an undertaking.

As to Certainty, I have prescribed to myself the maxim, that in this kind of investigation it is in no wise permissible to hold Opinions.
Everything, therefore, which bears any manner of resemblance to an Hypothesis is to be treated as contraband; it is not to be put up for sale even at the lowest price, but forthwith confiscated, immediately upon detection.

Any Knowledge that professes to hold a priori lays claim to be regarded as Absolutely Necessary.
This applies still more to any Determination of all Pure a priori Knowledge, since such Determination has to serve as the measure, and therefore as the [supreme] example, of all Apodeictic (philosophical) Certainty.

Whether I have succeeded in what I have undertaken must be left altogether to the reader's judgment; the author's task is solely to adduce Grounds, not to speak as to the Effect which they should have upon those who are sitting in judgment. [Axvi]
But the author, in order that he may not himself, innocently, be the cause of any weakening of his arguments, may be permitted to draw attention to certain passages, which, although merely incidental, may yet occasion some mistrust.
Such timely intervention may serve to counteract the influence which even quite undefined doubts as to these minor matters might otherwise exercise upon the reader's attitude in regard to the main issue.

If one has understood [not necessary agree with] Kant's philosophy critical and rationally, one will have to agree with Kant's declaration.

Kant's approach is completeness control, i.e. like effective fishing, he put a net surrounding all the metaphysical and philosophical issues such none can escape deliberations and resolution.

This why no matter how you eel around the fully enclosed net, there is no holes for you to escape the philosophical net I have surrounded and trapped you in.

I hope Seed can add the above to the list of my proclamations.

[Iwannaplato]

It's just laughable that in what VA quotes of Mackie, there is a rebuttal of VA's objective morals. Or better put, he is saying that what he is saying about sheepdog trials does not in anyway demonstrate objective values or objective morals.

But however determinate it is, the Objective appropriateness of standards in relation to aims or desires is no more of a threat to the denial of Objective values than is the Objectivity of evaluation relative to standards.
In fact it is logically no different from the Objectivity of goodness relative to desires.
Something may be called good simply in so far as it satisfies or is such as to satisfy a certain desire:
but the Objectivity of such relations of satisfaction does not constitute in our sense an Objective value.

He often doesn't read or understand what he quotes and/or links to.

[Veritas Aequitas]

LOL. If you google dog shows and sheepdog trials you will find dozens of events with both types of evaluating dogs based on diverse criteria events are taking place.
I shouldn't have assumed you could make this connection.

We're not trying to be experts in the labeling Evaluating Dog Events. I was pointing out that if you have a basic premise, a value based premise for an Evalutating Dog Event, then you can, yes, compare dogs. But the foundation is always a non-objective value in these dog evaluating events. You can draw conclusions about the speed of dogs performing tasks. But you cannot draw an objective conclusion that their carrying out this task is morally good. You can develop criteria for the beauty and ugliness of dogs, but you cannot prove that they are objectively beautiful.
The problem with your argument is that you MUST have the agreement on the value at the outset.
Of course people who agree on moral or aesthetic values can generally agree on moral conclusions.
But humans have diverse values. I've owned sheepdogs and been in the country and it was a pain in the ass when they saw herdable animals.

Strawman.
I have never related Dog Shows FSK and the like to Morality in the manner above.
My point is according to Mackie, as long as there are agreed standards [FSK], then the resultants are facts [FSK facts].

I have given this analogy a 1000 times.
All humans will acknowledge and agree the 'oughtness to breathe' [till the inevitable] is imperative. This is a science-biological fact within the science-biology-FSK.
My point is, in Principle, what is objective moral facts within the human-moral-FSK must have the same feature and qualities of the above imperative.
I have explained this but p-realists in their dogmaticism and resistance could not understand how this is possible.
So the onus is on me to justify how this Principle is possible.

https://www.worldsheepdogtrials.org/pas ... 017-final/
Do you deny these are factual and facts as qualified to the ISDS?

I deny exactly what you already quoted. That the goodness of their skills is objective. That one can judge the skills, of course. We can do this with humans. We can judge who is the fastest killer or typist. But to evaluate the goodness we have to have a moral axiom. Different groups have different axioms and we cannot objectively decide which value is good and which is bad. We can certainly have preferences.

Mackie is not support objective moral facts. And, of course, even if he was, we all know that there are philosophers who believe in such things.

Isn't it a fact that the 2017 world sheep dog trials Champion was Torbjørn Jaran Knive (Norway) with Gin [the dog]?

This is an objective fact, which must be qualified to that specific "world sheep dog trials organization" FSK.
Note: Two Senses of 'Objective'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

You are just making up numbers. And you just did it again. You said science could show which morality FSK is the most objective.

Are you sure you cannot see the contrasting extreme difference between the objectivity of the scientific FSK to the theistic FSK's objectivity [low].

You changed the wording. You changed it now to 'the morality-proper-FSK I proposed. Before you repeatedly referred to it as 'the morality FSK'. You have done this many times where criticisms change the way you describe/label/argue things without acknowledging that the criticism was spot on. But you again, as is your habit, gave number to the degree of objectivity of this FSK. You based this on Science which cannot pick which morality is best.

You proposed?? You have that unwarranted arrogance.

I have always refer to my morality as morality-proper and that had been done for a long time.
I do type morality as a convenience. Of course where necessary, as in this case, I will be more specific and use the term morality-proper. What is wrong with that.

If everyone or everyone in a group agrees to basic moral axioms, then you can use science and other forms of reasoning to help decide what actions/morals will work best to support those moral axioms. But science cannot help us decide on those axioms.

But we cannot use science to help us decide that the values inherent in those gender roles is correct.
Just as we cannot use science to determine if we should enhance aggression or empathy.
If we have a common value, then we can apply science to see what helps us achieve a world where that value is honored.

Strawman again!
I never said, science can help us to decide on what are moral axioms.

Within the moral-FSK, we determine what are the moral axioms, e.g. those involved in 'humans killing humans' which are already moral issues since thousands of years ago before the advent of science. Prior to science they don't have a high degree of objectivity.
Then we rely on science to establish they are indeed physical but reducing them to their respective neural correlates, verifying and testing them, thus making them more objective.

Regardless of whatever moral disagreement;
The universal principle is;
What is real, fact, truth, knowledge, objectivity, is conditioned upon a human-based FSR-FSK of which the scientific FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective.

Utter nonsense.

This exposed your own nonsensical views.
Show me which fact, truth, knowledge and objective is not dependent of some sort of human-based Framework and System of Realization and Knowledge.

You are so ignorant.
Note I have mentioned a '1000' times as above, the scientific FSK in general* is taken to be the standard at 100/100 the other FSKs are to be rated with.
Off hand we can rate the theistic-moral-FSK at the extreme end of the standard.
*Within the scientific FSK, the sub-FSKs will have different degrees of objectivity, e.g. the natural sciences, cosmology, theoretical, etc.

Gibbierish.
We all know you repeat things, quite a number of the things you repeat are nonsense. I was writing about morality and you jumped to the scientific FSK,

What wrong with you?
It is very common to compare the claims of theism to science.
So, why not the claims of morality to science?

[Veritas Aequitas]

It's just laughable that in what VA quotes of Mackie, there is a rebuttal of VA's objective morals. Or better put, he is saying that what he is saying about sheepdog trials does not in anyway demonstrate objective values or objective morals.

But however determinate it is, the Objective appropriateness of standards in relation to aims or desires is no more of a threat to the denial of Objective values than is the Objectivity of evaluation relative to standards.
In fact it is logically no different from the Objectivity of goodness relative to desires.
Something may be called good simply in so far as it satisfies or is such as to satisfy a certain desire:
but the Objectivity of such relations of satisfaction does not constitute in our sense an Objective value.

He often doesn't read or understand what he quotes and/or links to.

You are exposing your ignorance and ability to read again.
I have already explained the above.

I well aware of the following, he stated

but the Objectivity of such relations of satisfaction [1]
does not
constitute in our sense an Objective value [2].

In the above there are two senses of objectivity and facts, i.e. 1 differ from 2.

This is reflected in my thread;

Two Senses of 'Objective'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

Objectivity [1] is the FSK based facts and objectivity

Objectivity [2] is the philosophical realists' [Mackie's thesis] which is grounded on an illusion.

[Iwannaplato]

I have given this analogy a 1000 times.
All humans will acknowledge and agree the 'oughtness to breathe' [till the inevitable] is imperative. This is a science-biological fact within the science-biology-FSK.

No, this is demonstrably incorrect. Many people will question the use of 'oughtness'. Especially with the coming equivocation around that word.

My point is, in Principle, what is objective moral facts within the human-moral-FSK must have the same feature and qualities of the above imperative.
I have explained this but p-realists in their dogmaticism and resistance could not understand how this is possible.
So the onus is on me to justify how this Principle is possible.

P-realists who are not moral realists will disagree with your conclusion, the premise that everyone will agree with that wording and thus the argument, yes. Others who are not p-realists will also find the equivocation fallacious.
P-realisms who ART moral realists, at least many of them, are going to have problems with your argument, but perhaps not the conclusion.
It's nice that you believe in your own psychic abilities to figure out people's motivations.
viewtopic.php?p=657811#p657811

[Iwannaplato]

It's just laughable that in what VA quotes of Mackie, there is a rebuttal of VA's objective morals. Or better put, he is saying that what he is saying about sheepdog trials does not in anyway demonstrate objective values or objective morals.

But however determinate it is, the Objective appropriateness of standards in relation to aims or desires is no more of a threat to the denial of Objective values than is the Objectivity of evaluation relative to standards.
In fact it is logically no different from the Objectivity of goodness relative to desires.
Something may be called good simply in so far as it satisfies or is such as to satisfy a certain desire:
but the Objectivity of such relations of satisfaction does not constitute in our sense an Objective value.

He often doesn't read or understand what he quotes and/or links to.

You are exposing your ignorance and ability to read again.
I have already explained the above.

I well aware of the following, he stated

but the Objectivity of such relations of satisfaction [1]
does not
constitute in our sense an Objective value [2].

In the above there are two senses of objectivity and facts, i.e. 1 differ from 2.

This is reflected in my thread;

Two Senses of 'Objective'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

Objectivity [1] is the FSK based facts and objectivity

Objectivity [2] is the philosophical realists' [Mackie's thesis] which is grounded on an illusion.

It is very hard to follow your idiosyncractic sense of logic and English, but as long as you admit that Mackie does not consider there to be objective values and morals, it doesn't really matter. He disagrees with your core thesis. And he does not mean by objectivity what you mean by objectivity in the sense that you think you have demonstrated is relevant.

You don't get to add in your idiosyncratic idea of a term to create a hallucinated ally. Which in the end just ends up being a convoluted failed appeal to authority.

[Iwannaplato]

This is typical of the claim of what is mind-independent fact and objective reality by PH and his analytic gang.

The falsehoods here:
The people disagreeing with VA are somehow PH's. He is not the leader of the gang that doesn't exist. We are not all analytic. Well, I'll speak for myself. I'm not an adherant of analytical philosophy.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have given this analogy a 1000 times.
All humans will acknowledge and agree the 'oughtness to breathe' [till the inevitable] is imperative. This is a science-biological fact within the science-biology-FSK.

No, this is demonstrably incorrect. Many people will question the use of 'oughtness'. Especially with the coming equivocation around that word.

It is because the impulse to breathe is so natural and spontaneous, that they are oblivious the fact that there is an 'oughtness' to breathe.
However, the oughtness to eat, eat the basic nutrients, drink a certain amount of water, may be more obvious. This is the 'oughtness' conveyed from the 'health' community everywhere.

Note, we are not in a schoolyard or wet market, pub; we are doing philosophy here, thus the need for rigorousness and precisions.
Thus an objective moral oughtness is critical as a fixed ground to facilitate moral progress.

My point is, in Principle, what is objective moral facts within the human-moral-FSK must have the same feature and qualities of the above imperative.
I have explained this but p-realists in their dogmaticism and resistance could not understand how this is possible.
So the onus is on me to justify how this Principle is possible.

P-realists who are not moral realists will disagree with your conclusion, the premise that everyone will agree with that wording and thus the argument, yes. Others who are not p-realists will also find the equivocation fallacious.
P-realisms who ART moral realists, at least many of them, are going to have problems with your argument, but perhaps not the conclusion.
It's nice that you believe in your own psychic abilities to figure out people's motivations.
viewtopic.php?p=657811#p657811

Those who will never accept objective moral facts from a moral-FSK are the moral relativists where any thing goes with morality.
Moral relativists has to respect the morality defined by other moralists as valid, since they are relative to the various moralists.
If one group view that torturing and killing babies for pleasure is morally right, there is nothing other moral relativists [who respect diversity] can do to stop them on the basis of morality.
What they can do is to hope some criminal laws will address the problem, but criminal laws belong to the political FSK not the moral FSK.

Thus moral relativism of the p-realists is inherently evil.
Philosophical Realism is A Threat to Humanity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40094

[Veritas Aequitas]

It's just laughable that in what VA quotes of Mackie, there is a rebuttal of VA's objective morals. Or better put, he is saying that what he is saying about sheepdog trials does not in anyway demonstrate objective values or objective morals.


He often doesn't read or understand what he quotes and/or links to.

You are exposing your ignorance and ability to read again.
I have already explained the above.

I well aware of the following, he stated

but the Objectivity of such relations of satisfaction [1]
does not
constitute in our sense an Objective value [2].

In the above there are two senses of objectivity and facts, i.e. 1 differ from 2.

This is reflected in my thread;

Two Senses of 'Objective'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

Objectivity [1] is the FSK based facts and objectivity

Objectivity [2] is the philosophical realists' [Mackie's thesis] which is grounded on an illusion.

It is very hard to follow your idiosyncractic sense of logic and English, but as long as you admit that Mackie does not consider there to be objective values and morals, it doesn't really matter. He disagrees with your core thesis. And he does not mean by objectivity what you mean by objectivity in the sense that you think you have demonstrated is relevant.

You don't get to add in your idiosyncratic idea of a term to create a hallucinated ally. Which in the end just ends up being a convoluted failed appeal to authority.

You are not reading the OP again.

I stated in the first para of the OP;

This OP is NOT about Mackie's Error Theory,
but to show that there are philosophers [like Mackie] even of the analytical tradition who recognized there are FSK-ed facts; as philosophical realists, they ignore these FSK-ed facts as objectively real.

I stated, I am not intereste in Mackie's point re morality, i.e. his Error Theory of Ethics.

I am pointing out that Mackie do recognize there are FSK-ed facts but he put this aside for this thesis which is based on the p-realists basis of objective value.

To PH & gang, there is no such thing as FSK-ed facts, there are only the p-realists' version of 'what is fact' which I argued is grounded on an illusion.
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167